who do u think would win a battle between Rome and Sparta in their prime?

Question

I'm talking about the roman war machine and Sparta before she took on the Persian empire. both were well disciplined but Rome would pull back in a fight Sparta wouldn't. so who do u think would win? and wouldn't it be great to see this on the history channel or the military channel some day?

Answer 1

I give my vote to spartans. Their bravery were icons for even the well disciplined romans.Perhaps the most widely known event on the efficiency of the Spartan war-machine is related to the Persian Wars. The Spartan stand at the Battle of Thermopylae has been repeatedly cited in a military Grand Strategy context as a role model on the advantages of training, strategy and bravery against extremely overwhelming odds.A fact widely achknowledged by Romans of the time and majority of historians

Answer 2

I believe Rome had the best army under Julius Caesar. I'm not sure what Sparta's prime time was, but nonetheless, I believe Caesar would have defeated the Spartans. The Greek Phalanx wasn't made perfect until Alexander's reforms, when he upgrated the speak to be almost 7 meters tall. That was when the phalanx was as deadliest. Rome made its reforms under Sulla and Marius, while Caesar improved the logistics and the endurance of the troops.

The Roman army was very strong in terms of discipline, training, tactics, and armour quality. The question is therefore a bit ahistorical, because the prime of the two armies existed under different periods of their era, which gives Rome an advantace in terms of technology and experience. One should also remember that the phalanx was a great defensive unit, but they rarely went on offensive. Instead, they tried to weary the enemy while cavalry or other offensive units tried to route them. The Roman legion, however, was good at both defense and offense; and even if both units preferred flat land, the legions would have done better in more difficult terrain due to their greater mobility.

One should also remember that the Macedons, who had the phalanx uppgrated, won a Pyrrhic victory at the Battle of Asculum against Roman legions that were inexperienced. They had never met elephants in battle before, and yet they caused great casualties to the Macedons. I think that Sparta's greatest strenghts were based on pride and honour alone; their spirit was based on emotions. Roman generals, however, cared more about tactics and their leadership was more rational.

So, even if the were to win a battle, Rome would surely have won the war.

Answer 3

At her prime, Sparta had a difficulty to put up an army of 50000 men. And the first class fighters, the Spartiats, were never more than a few thousand. But Rome between the beginning of the second Punic war and the end of the republic had theoretically well over 400000 men, citizens and colonies and allies. Of course it was practically impossible to arm and feed them, and many were needed to work in agriculture. And a big part of these almost half a million men were elder people or badly trained. But even if Rome mobilised only a third of them and used a part of them for defensive tasks, the main army was still in excess of 100000. So the questions of equipment and tactics become almost negligible. The Greek (Pyrrhus, Macedonia and theoretically Sparta) never had a chance.

Answer 4

Well, Rome of course! The Roman army in its prime would have outnumbered the Spartan army so badly it wouldn't have stood a chance. Also, an army of a free-thinking people will always come up with better ways to fight and win (given enough time) than an army that depends entirely on raw courage and strength. At some point, the thinking army innovates in a way that brute strength can't keep up with. That's how Sparta lost to Athens.

Answer 5

Rome due in part because Sparta's defensive and offensive strategies were well known to Rome by the time it was a great power and the fact that Rome could place such a larger army on the line then Sparta ever could even in its prime.

Good Luck!!!

Answer 6

sparta has recently been linked genetically with semetic countries as to it's origins!!that being said the early roman army defeated the macedonians on uneven rocky hillsides in a pitched battle in which the 16 foot long sphalanax of spears that they employed very successfully in most cases were unable to fend off the short swords,pilum throwing spears and velite archery and slings!!the macedonians phalanxes had ruled over all of greece,the persian empire,the east greeks,egyptians with their horsemen and chariots!!but this the roman army's legions and administrators also did; and held most of those lands and more in an administrative ruling structure for hundreds of years;not the brief lifespan of alexander,however glorious or more expansive into asia!!sparta was a small city state too;which never rose far beyond that status or indeed wanted too!!but the bravery of able and noble commanders like LEONIDAS OF SPARTA ARE A TIMELESS EXAMPLE TO ALL OF MANKIND OF RESOURCEFULNESS AND HONOR-BOUND DUTY!!

Answer 7

Sparta hands down if you need proof read the book Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield it is awe inspiring and the best ever on Thermopylae and the 300 after you read that book see if you can keep from agreeing with me ....have a great new year

Answer 8

Rome would beat Sparta.

Reason, The same as why the Romans beat a Macedonia army twice it size Legions beat Phalanx Every time.

Answer 9

The Roman Legions easily outmanuevered the Greek Phalanxe when they met...the age of warfare is always advancing.

Answer 10

Sparta. This guys were made for war since childhood, nor were afraid to die.